Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Thoughts on the Inconclusive Zone in Comparison Question Test (CQT) Cover

Thoughts on the Inconclusive Zone in Comparison Question Test (CQT)

By: Avital Ginton  
Open Access
|Mar 2023

References

  1. Backster C. (1962), Methods of strengthening our polygraph technique. Police, 6, 61–68.
  2. Backster C. (1963), Polygraph professionalization through technique standardization. Law and Order, 11, 63–64.
  3. Elaad E. (1985), Decision Rules in Polygraph Examination. In: Anti-terrorism, Forensic Science, Psychology in Police Investigations (pp. 167–179). A Book of proceeding. First Published, 1985; Imprint Routledge. 2019. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429036590.
  4. Elaad E. (1999), The Control Question Technique: A search for improved decision rules. Polygraph, 28, 65–73.
  5. Ginton A. (2009), Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) strength – a new concept in PDD that reframes the notion of psychological set and the role of attention in CQT polygraph examinations. Polygraph, 38 (3), 204–201.
  6. Ginton A. (2012), A non-standard method for estimating the accuracy of lie detection techniques demonstrated on a self-validating set of field polygraph examinations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.76513710.1080/1068316X.2013.765137
  7. Ginton A. (2013), The Importance of the Consistency Factor in CQT and Other Polygraph Tests. Polygraph. 2013, 42, 146–162.
  8. Honts C.R. (2014), Countermeasures and credibility assessment. In: D.C. Raskin, C.R. Honts & J.C. Kircher (eds), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 131–158). Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-394433-7.00004-X
  9. Krapohl D.J. (2005), Polygraph decision rules for evidentiary and paired-testing (Marin Protocol) applications. Polygraph, 34, 184–192.
  10. Krapohl D.J. & McManus B. (1999), An objective method for manually scoring poly-graph data. Polygraph, 29, 209–222.
  11. Krapohl D.J. & Shaw P.K. (2015), Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice, Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-802924-4.00005-0
  12. Lord F.M., Novick M.R. & Birnbaum A. (1968), Statistical theories of mental Test scores. Addison-Wesely, Oxford, England.
  13. Matte J.A. (1996), Forensic Psychophysiology using the polygraph. JAM Publications, Williamsville N.Y.
  14. Palmatier J.J. & Rovner L. (2015), Credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Th eory, the polygraph process and construct validity. International, Journal of Psychophysiology, 95 (1), 3–13.10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.06.00124933412
  15. Raskin D.C. & Honts C.R. (2002), The comparison question test. In: M. Kleiner (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 1–48). Academic Press, New York.
  16. Reid J.E.& Inbau F.B. (1977), Truth and deception: The Polygraph (“Lie Detector”) Technique. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.
  17. Senter S.M., Weatherman D., Krapohl D.J. & Horvath F.S. (2010), Psychological set or differential salience: A proposal for reconciling theory and terminology in polygraph testing. Polygraph, 39(2), 109–117.
  18. Trochim W.M. (2000), The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd edition. Atomic Dog Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
  19. Vrij A. (2008), Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. New York.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ep-2022-0008 | Journal eISSN: 2380-0550 | Journal ISSN: 1898-5238
Language: English
Page range: 9 - 22
Published on: Mar 19, 2023
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2023 Avital Ginton, published by Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.